Conservatives got stronger in Senate, but Republicans lost seats.President won re-election, but with less popular support/mandate.Hous of Reps stayed republican, but with less seats.

Question:

Why should conservatives bend the knee? It will only demoralize their base. They should instead stand on principle in the House and show voters that their support will be rewarded. They can compromise with Obama, but it should be a compromise they GET something out of.

Example: allow increase revenue through tax expiration, meet Obama in the middle: implement something like Romney structure for tax simplification. Instead of jacking rates on 250k+ - compromise on simplification. Something like a hard cap on deductions for earners 250k+ and a soft cap for everyone else, with top line rates flattened and lowered. Gets Obama the increase in taxes he wants, but simplifies the tax code across the board. They shouldn't try and couple this with spending cuts or entitlement reforms, there isn't enough popular support and Dems will just demigod the issue.

If they just say "fine extend bush tax cuts for everyone below 250k, but not above" its basically giving Obama/Dems a huge political win for 2014 without making a material impact on the broader economy. Dems/Obama will still demigod them in 2014 for not spending more and thus stifling the economy (incorrect, but populist message), and dems/Obama get to tell the <250k "WE GOT YOU YOUR TAX CUT". Lose/Lose compromise and capitulation (instead of principled compromise) are what erode broader populist appeal of conservative (at least libertarian/conservative fiscal/economic) policy.

Conservatives got stronger in Senate, but Republicans lost seats.President won re-election, but with less popular support/mandate.Hous of Reps stayed republican, but with less seats.

Question:

Why should conservatives bend the knee? It will only demoralize their base. They should instead stand on principle in the House and show voters that their support will be rewarded. They can compromise with Obama, but it should be a compromise they GET something out of.

Example: allow increase revenue through tax expiration, meet Obama in the middle: implement something like Romney structure for tax simplification. Instead of jacking rates on 250k+ - compromise on simplification. Something like a hard cap on deductions for earners 250k+ and a soft cap for everyone else, with top line rates flattened and lowered. Gets Obama the increase in taxes he wants, but simplifies the tax code across the board. They shouldn't try and couple this with spending cuts or entitlement reforms, there isn't enough popular support and Dems will just demigod the issue.

If they just say "fine extend bush tax cuts for everyone below 250k, but not above" its basically giving Obama/Dems a huge political win for 2014 without making a material impact on the broader economy. Dems/Obama will still demigod them in 2014 for not spending more and thus stifling the economy (incorrect, but populist message), and dems/Obama get to tell the <250k "WE GOT YOU YOUR TAX CUT". Lose/Lose compromise and capitulation (instead of principled compromise) are what erode broader populist appeal of conservative (at least libertarian/conservative fiscal/economic) policy.

Because their base is eventually going to get tired of nothing happening.

Conservatives got stronger in Senate, but Republicans lost seats.President won re-election, but with less popular support/mandate.Hous of Reps stayed republican, but with less seats.

Question:

Why should conservatives bend the knee? It will only demoralize their base. They should instead stand on principle in the House and show voters that their support will be rewarded. They can compromise with Obama, but it should be a compromise they GET something out of.

Example: allow increase revenue through tax expiration, meet Obama in the middle: implement something like Romney structure for tax simplification. Instead of jacking rates on 250k+ - compromise on simplification. Something like a hard cap on deductions for earners 250k+ and a soft cap for everyone else, with top line rates flattened and lowered. Gets Obama the increase in taxes he wants, but simplifies the tax code across the board. They shouldn't try and couple this with spending cuts or entitlement reforms, there isn't enough popular support and Dems will just demigod the issue.

If they just say "fine extend bush tax cuts for everyone below 250k, but not above" its basically giving Obama/Dems a huge political win for 2014 without making a material impact on the broader economy. Dems/Obama will still demigod them in 2014 for not spending more and thus stifling the economy (incorrect, but populist message), and dems/Obama get to tell the <250k "WE GOT YOU YOUR TAX CUT". Lose/Lose compromise and capitulation (instead of principled compromise) are what erode broader populist appeal of conservative (at least libertarian/conservative fiscal/economic) policy.

Thinking like this is exactly why our credit rating was downgraded and why Romney lost.

Compromise isn't a bad thing. Both sides need to give to get a solution for the country that works.

The Senate did not get more conservative. Dems gained seats how is it more conservative. That new independent is already leaning left.

Maybe because they don't want to get thrown out in 2014. Obstruction on the fiscal cliff means tax rates return to Clinton-era levels, so they either deal or they suffer the consequences.

There's merit to this, but I think the bigger issue is that the GOP is on very thin ice regarding the continued perception -- particularly from those in the middle, like me -- that they intend NOT to govern over party politics. IMO, Tom Friedman pretty much nails it here.

Angus King is anything but "independent". He'll pay bi-partisanship lip service, but I expect him to be a consistently reliable vote for Democrats.

That's only because the Democratic Party is the natural home of moderates right now.

Logged

"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Saw this piece on politico this morning in which Boehner basically says he's willing to consider increasing revenues/taxes.

I see no reason for optimism based on this part of the story:

Quote

“People making all this money have to contribute a little bit more,” Reid said in an afternoon news conference at the Capitol. “And all the exit polling, all the polling we’ve done — the vast majority of the American people support that, including rich people.”

That position is a nonstarter for Boehner — he’s opposed to raising tax rates.

Logged

"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

^ Tax rates aren't that important. If we can raise revenue by keeping the same rates, but taking out deductions, that's fine. There's nothing sacred about a 39.6% top marginal rate. If that's what Boehner can get, so be it.

Conservative senators replaced moderate ones in the senate IMO - Cruz in Texas being the prime example. So I think the Republicans are more conservative on average than they were. Also 4 of their losses are imo about candidate and not ideology (the "rape is god's will" guys and the retreads in WI/VA), I don't see the surviving Senators rushing out.

As for the obstructionist problem: thats how dems feel about republican house - I doubt conservative districts want to see lots more compromise along what happened in the last two years. Every single one ended up with bad policy (from their POV), repubs still attacked, and no improvement to economy.

Just bumping this topic again given that the "fiscal cliff" is in the news.

I'm optimistic that something can get worked out. It seems like Obama has the political capital in his own party to get some spending cuts done, and it also seems like many on the right are now willing to consider various ways to "raise revenues" -- Romney himself put this idea out during the campaign.

Just bumping this topic again given that the "fiscal cliff" is in the news.

I like the way that Brian Beutler put this: calls it a "giant austerity bomb". The "fiscal cliff" is like "finreg"... kinda lame.

Quote

I'm optimistic that something can get worked out. It seems like Obama has the political capital in his own party to get some spending cuts done, and it also seems like many on the right are now willing to consider various ways to "raise revenues" -- Romney himself put this idea out during the campaign.

It can definitely get worked out on the Dem side: Obama will be able to wrest compromises from his party, probably on entitlement spending. The question is whether or not Boehner can get the Repubicans to compromise.

Interceptor - every political post you make is: Democrats will do the right thing, but will Republicans? I can respond with: No Boehner will eventually get a compromise, but will Obama? It doesn't add anything.